A. AHMED KOYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam, the 4th respondent herein, rejecting the request for pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken in Ext.P7 cannot be supported at all. It is further pointed out that the original Service Book of the petitioner was forwarded by the 6th respondent to the office of the 4th respondent and since it is found that the same is missing, again a reconstituted Service Book was also forwarded.

(2.) THE petitioner while working as Peon after entering service on 01.08.1964 and after getting successful promotions, reached upto the level of Lower Division Store Keeper. On 02.05.1977, the petitioner applied for Leave Without Allowance and the leave was sanctioned for four years. On the expiry of the leave period, it is stated that he had submitted an application for extension of leave. According to the petitioner, even though he had approached the 5th respondent to allow him to rejoin duty, he was not permitted and finally he attained superannuation on 30.07.1999. The petitioner was thereafter served with a copy of Ext.P1 order imposing penalty on him. The same will show that even though he was terminated from service, the initial punishment has been changed as compulsory retirement. Therefore, he has left 13 years of service which qualifies for pension. Thereafter, the petitioner started his efforts to get pension. Ext.P2 is a copy of the communication from the 4th respondent addressed to the Director of Collegiate Education forwarding the Service Book of the petitioner. Therein it is recorded that the petitioner is eligible for grant of pension. But it is mentioned that in the Service Book, the Principal has not signed and appropriate orders were also sought for by the Deputy Director from the Director.

(3.) EXT .P6 is a communication from the office of the Accountant General stating that the pension papers are not seen received in the said office. Finally, by Ext.P7, the 4th respondent took the view that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pension. In Ext.P7, it is stated that the entries in the Service Book of the incumbent are not seen signed by the Principal and most of the service particulars are not seen received. Certain other defects have also been pointed out.